Open main menu
discussion rooms: Tea roomEtym. scr.Info deskBeer parlourGrease pit ← September 2014 · October 2014 · November 2014 → · (current)


Block capitalsEdit

Whenever a form asks me to fill it out in block capitals... I always wonder what other sort of capitals there are. Anyone? Renard Migrant (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

If our definition of block capital is correct, then typed capitals wouldn't be block capitals. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:24, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
I suppose it's to encourage clear, unambiguous lettering, as opposed to cursive capitals. Keith the Koala (talk) 11:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
Block letters (known as printscript, manuscript, print writing or ball and stick in academics) are a sans-serif (or "gothic") style of writing Latin script in which the letters are individual glyphs, with no joining. ...
On official forms, one is often asked to "please print". This is because cursive handwriting is harder to read, and the glyphs are joined so they do not fit neatly into separate boxes.
--Thnidu (talk) 23:55, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Created entriesEdit

How can I find a list of new entries that a particular user has created? Zeggazo (talk) 22:26, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Go to Special:Contributions, enter their user name, and check the "Only show edits that are page creations" box. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 07:13, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Looking for a word.Edit

The word would mean something along the lines of "someone who is sexually/emotionally attracted to shy or socially awkward people." I'm also looking for a word that means something like "a female who has a mother-like role in a relationship". Rædi Stædi Yæti {-skriv til mig-} 15:17, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

I am not even sure such a word exists, but even if you find it, you will be probably better off not using it, as I think it would be likely to be very obscure or slang. (Unless I am missing some obvious one.) Eschew obfuscation and all that. Keφr 06:07, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


Neutral, geographical (short-form) name - which is aplicable in general meaning- cannot be translated by transient political name with limited use Czechia is a correct common geographical name. It is commonly used in academic and scholar circles and in media. It is not still widespread, but the using of the word has been increased and the name was registered in 1993 in the UN list of countries. The short form name of the Czech state should be used, because it is politically neutral, capable to denominate the country in timeless (historical) meaning. The use in common language is not important in that direction. More, to ask for deletion of its equivalents in multiple languages, where that form is COMMONLY used contradicts demonstrably the truth. Above all, to ask for the deletion of universally applicable correct name is shortsighted, because using only politcal name limits Czech state only to the period from 1993 until now, which is clumsy and confusing, becuase history of Czechia is more than 1100 years old. Such a request can be done only by somebody, who is not able to realize or understand real importance of short form (geographical, informal) name of the country in general context. So, the request is nonsensical and totally unpractical, complicating clear description of the Czech state with absurd necessity to dividing and separating periods in Wikipedia articles, as is proved e.g. by Music of Czech lands / Music o the Czech Republic (and many others), however it is music of one country. This "Czech" issue is only one among all traditional countries in Europe, without comprehension of necessity to denominate the country by the name, which is able to be applicated in general, thus, to simplify and generalize the use, which is helpful and comprehensible for everybody, who is not (for obvious reasons) informed about political and formal changes in the country (similarly to many other European countries). The Czech state cannot be described as "the Czech Republic" not only because it is INCORRECT in itself, but also because resulting in generating of errors, from which can be chosen one of the most absurd here (taken from English Wikipedia): ("Bořivoj I, Duke of Bohemia, born in the Czech Republic" !!! ) and many other similar nonsenses.

The request of mr.Polansky is not only in the direction against the orientation of recipient and writer of articles in Czech section of Wikipedia, but also against the recommendation of the Ministry of Foreign affairs of the Czech Republic from 1998 ( Links (detailed explanations info): 1) 2) 3)


This is Wiktionary, not Wikipedia. This is not the place to discuss suggested page moves at Wikipedia. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2014 (UTC)


Mmm! I'm going to a do - that is - an event. I need to write the plural in a text message. What is the plural? Is it dos, doos, do's or what? And this meaning of do seems to be missing. Bob Brown

It's dos, and this meaning is the first meaning listed under do#Noun. —Aɴɢʀ (talk) 20:41, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

Regarding 2014 Wiktionary Word ArchiveEdit

To whom it may concern,

I am a regular visitor to the Wiktionary. However as many of you might have observed by now, the word-of-the-day archive has not been populated since January 2014.

The editors are requested to look into the matter and do the needful.


Hi. Could someone please be so good as to unprotect (semi-protect, whatever) Template:es-conj-er? There's a bit of work to do on it to bring it in line with other similar templates, you see. Thanks. --Type56op9 (talk) 09:01, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Unprotected. (Why was it even protected in the first place? It does not even have a hundred transclusions.) Keφr 09:10, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Lovely. And Template:es-conj-ir too, ta. --Type56op9 (talk) 10:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Lowered to semi (170 transclusions). Keφr 10:40, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Need help with adding the plural to a nounEdit

I want to add a plural form to the Wauja noun amunaun. So I imagine it would look like this: amunaun (plural amunaunaun). I tried copying the format used by the English site for one of its noun plurals (goose/geese). This is what I tried: Template:wau-noun It didn't work. Apparently I need a template? Would be grateful for some advice. Thanks. 22:35, 25 October 2014 (UTC). The page I am trying to add the plural to is here: Emi-Ireland (talk) 22:36, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

{{wau-noun}} won't work until there's actually something at Template:wau-noun (curly brackets are for templates). Using the {{head}} template, the unnamed parameters (named ones such as g= or tr= don't count) after the language code and the part of speech category are for inflected forms, with the odd-numbered parameter for the name of the form, and the even-numbered for the form itself. You'll see that I put "plural" in the 3rd parameter position and amunaunaun in the 4th. Chuck Entz (talk) 23:54, 25 October 2014 (UTC) thank you! Emi-Ireland (talk) 00:04, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

what are the pros and cons of editorial anonymityEdit

I don't understand what editorial anonymity means to find the pro and cons.

can some one explain it to me to I understand —This unsigned comment was added by (talk) at 01:23, 28 October 2014 (UTC).

editorial + anonymity? Keφr 08:32, 28 October 2014 (UTC)